Armed America

This is Clayton Cramer's response to Michael Bellesiles' fraudulent revisionist history, The Arming of America.

Publication Date Moved Up!

Armed America will start shipping December 19th, and will be in book stores by January 16th. Remember: if you have trouble talking yourself into spending $26.99 for a book--buy a copy, read it, then contribute it your local library, where it will be sitting on the shelf, available for students writing term papers for the next fifteen years. Because you have contributed it to a public library, you can deduct the cost of the book as a charitable contribution on your income taxes--which makes it really not so terribly expensive.

Or, you could buy two copies--one for you, and one for your local library.

I once donated a pro-gun book to the Cobb County library. They already had one pro-gun book, two or three somewhat neutral ones, and several with decidedly anti-gun bias. My book never showed up on the shelves. When I asked about it later, they said that many books donated to the library system are auctioned off (possibly to be shredded as scrap paper)! So before I'd give a $30 hardcover book to a local library system, I would inquire about whether they would keep it and shelve it, and I'd ask for it back if they decide not to add it to their inventory.

This is Clayton Cramer's response to Michael Bellesiles' fraudulent revisionist history, The Arming of America.

Publication Date Moved Up!

Armed America will start shipping December 19th, and will be in book stores by January 16th. Remember: if you have trouble talking yourself into spending $26.99 for a book--buy a copy, read it, then contribute it your local library, where it will be sitting on the shelf, available for students writing term papers for the next fifteen years. Because you have contributed it to a public library, you can deduct the cost of the book as a charitable contribution on your income taxes--which makes it really not so terribly expensive.

Or, you could buy two copies--one for you, and one for your local library.

I saw that on his website, but I did not know it was about Bellesiles.

I have anecdotal evidence that also made me think that he (Bellesiles) was wrong (other than trying to rewrite history books). Of the 2 very old photos my family has of my great and great, great grand family (pictures with more than 1 or 2 people in it) there are 3 rifles. The one with the worst looking house you have seen with someone still living in it, with 10 children all lined up on the porch (all dirty, some in torn clothing) was the one with 2 rifles. By the way, the 2 oldest looking boys (my guess would be that the 2 boys were 10-13 years old) held the rifles.
So the claim that they were too expensive for the poor to own was BS. According to Bellesiles, they were rich for having 2 rifles. But if you think about it for a minute, the purchase of a new gun may have been expensive, but lead balls and gunpowder were cheap. Which would allow you to go hunting and kill an animal and have 20-30 pounds of meat for what amounts to the cost of the ball and powder. It was more expensive for the poor to NOT own a firearm. How much would it have cost to buy all that meat? Also, who says they have to purchase the firearm anyway? Back then things were bartered as much as purchased. Maybe instead of payment in money for goods or service rendered, they were paid with an old rifle. If I had 10 kids, the choice of payment in cash or an old rifle, the rifle will feed the kids long after the $ worth of food is gone.

Now I know an answer when people ask what I would like for Christmas... Book Store Gift Card.

I saw that on his website, but I did not know it was about Bellesiles.

I have anecdotal evidence that also made me think that he (Bellesiles) was wrong (other than trying to rewrite history books). Of the 2 very old photos my family has of my great and great, great grand family (pictures with more than 1 or 2 people in it) there are 3 rifles. The one with the worst looking house you have seen with someone still living in it, with 10 children all lined up on the porch (all dirty, some in torn clothing) was the one with 2 rifles. By the way, the 2 oldest looking boys (my guess would be that the 2 boys were 10-13 years old) held the rifles.
So the claim that they were too expensive for the poor to own was BS. According to Bellesiles, they were rich for having 2 rifles. But if you think about it for a minute, the purchase of a new gun may have been expensive, but lead balls and gunpowder were cheap. Which would allow you to go hunting and kill an animal and have 20-30 pounds of meat for what amounts to the cost of the ball and powder. It was more expensive for the poor to NOT own a firearm. How much would it have cost to buy all that meat? Also, who says they have to purchase the firearm anyway? Back then things were bartered as much as purchased. Maybe instead of payment in money for goods or service rendered, they were paid with an old rifle. If I had 10 kids, the choice of payment in cash or an old rifle, the rifle will feed the kids long after the $ worth of food is gone.

Click to expand...

I don't know anything about Bellesiles other than what I have just read, but if he is trying to say that most people were not armed in America except in recent history because rifles were too expensive, he must be delusional. I don't know if I've ever heard of a more ridiculous, unreasonable premise in my life.

My ancestors, lets say those alive before the time of refridgeration, were all but force to have rifles! There is no way they could have survived without the means to harvest meat, protein. Does he really believe that everyone as a vegetarian back then and those that weren't would rely on traps alone to capture game? Also, most Americans had rifles for more than just the harvesting of game, they had rifles for self-defense! There weren't a ton of police officers around back then, and how would you get them to come to your need if you did need them? Smoke signals? There were no telephones to call police even if there were a ton of them, which there weren't. The people of the past relied on themselves for their own self-defense, and they did so with rifles most of the time. At times they even had to protect themselves from American Indians, and then later on from invading armies, and also, men heckbent on stealing their property and killing them to get it. A rifle was a tool that early Americans could not afford not to have. It was a multi-use tool. Self-defense and meat.

Its not like they had the local supermarket with meat being refrigerated in it, and even though they salted meat to cure it, most of my ancestors were entirely too poor to buy it. They had to harvest the meat and cure it themselves. They had to have rifles.

As stated above, if they could not afford the cash for rifles, they would barter for them. That is some of the worst revisionist history I have heard of in my life.